Anyone Know How Big Of Tire We Can Stuff Under The Back?

[goofyone]

Via the car show news conference.
Targeting a new tire being developed by Cooper.
135mm's on the front and a 175mm on the rear.

22:25.

Yup, we are back to the 135/175 combo. Those sizes have been discussed on occasion in the past however it looks like the larger rear tire is back in favor again. It is interesting to see how these details evolve over time as this is one way we know that there is indeed engineering and simulation testing work being completed behind the scenes in preparation for building an actual pre-production test fleet.

 

[Lil4X]

Would this be the difference between front and back or just comparing the two sizes?

Just comparing the proposed front sizes.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Yup, we are back to the 135/175 combo. Those sizes have been discussed on occasion in the past however it looks like the larger rear tire is back in favor again. It is interesting to see how these details evolve over time as this is one way we know that there is indeed engineering and simulation testing work being completed behind the scenes in preparation for building an actual pre-production test fleet.

a quick calculation shows that with a 135/175 (assuming similar tire pressure) would make a 60:40 weight distribution Front:Rear.

I have always been curious what the handling difference would be with and without a passenger.
The change in load distribution with and without a passenger is rather significant.

 

[Ekh]

Maybe it my eye looking funny, but the P3 look bigger than P4! Is that true?

It looks bigger and wider, but that's mostly the effect of the wide-angle lens used to take the shot.

 

[goofyone]

a quick calculation shows that with a 135/175 (assuming similar tire pressure) would make a 60:40 weight distribution Front:Rear.

I have always been curious what the handling difference would be with and without a passenger.
The change in load distribution with and without a passenger is rather significant.

From what we have been told you are close in your calculations as EM has told us the weight distribution is about 70/30 empty and about 66/33 fully fueled with a 180 lb driver. EM has specifically described the weight distribution as being equally distributed between the three tires on many occasions.

I believe the reason why EM has gone back on forth on the wider rear tire is that it is primarily intended as a means to improve handling when there is more weight in the cabin such as when carrying passenger. The handling of tadpole trikes is known to become more sensitive, specifically resulting in over-steer, as the center of gravity shifts rearward so the handling will definitely change with a passenger. However EM should be able to overcome this issue relatively easily with the assistance of the wider rear tire and the standard electronic drives aids which include the ABS, TCS, and ESC systems.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

What would the distribution be with a 180lb driver and 180lm passenger?

 

[NSTG8R]

Wonder how a "Tweel" type set-up would work on an Elio. Wouldn't have to worry about flats!

 

[Dusty921]

Wonder how a "Tweel" type set-up would work on an Elio. Wouldn't have to worry about flats!



View attachment 5320

There's an interesting thought, not sure if the "Tweel" has developed legs for
any sort of market yet, but at first blanch you might need plugs like the "Dirt"
racers use to eliminate build up of trash/mud/snow and air inside them.

 

[NSTG8R]

Good point on the snow build up. That'd throw the balance WAY out. Maybe a coating of Neverwet (Rustoleum product) on the spoked area would help prevent a build up.

http://www.rustoleum.com/product-catalog/consumer-brands/neverwet/neverwet-kit/

 

[Graemexx]

I feel that the most important thing that they could do is offer a softer tire as an option. I am sure that there is a lot of people that would be willing to sacrifice mileage for comfort and handling.